The Lieutenant
It’s 1964, and Gene Roddenberry is fighting a losing battle. NBC, who was airing his military drama The Lieutenant, has refused to air an episode called “To Set It Right,” a blunt jab at racism. The plot’s simple - a black and a white Marine clash over bigotry, forcing the lead, Lt. William Rice, to get the two to see eye to eye. Roddenberry, a WWII vet turned TV writer, saw it as a chance to spotlight a contemporary American issue. But the U.S. Marine Corps, who’d been providing equipment and extras, weren’t having it. They didn’t want their image tarnished by a story that showed bigotry in the Marines. Pressure mounted, and NBC - nervous about ruffling feathers - yanked the episode from its February 22, 1964, slot, airing a rerun instead.
Variety’s review two days later - February 24, 1964 - confirms “To Set It Right” made it to air somewhere, thus securing Nichelle Nichols' first television appearance. Roddenberry, not one to sit idle, rallied the NAACP, who saw the episode’s merit and leaned on NBC to reconsider, arguing it was a step toward racial dialogue. But the network, caught between sponsors, the Marines, and a divided audience, wouldn’t budge.
The damage was done - the Marine Corps pulled support, and The Lieutenant was cancelled by March after 29 episodes. For Roddenberry, it was a gut punch but a revelation: going head-on with social issues could sink a show faster than a torpedo. Two years later, when he launched Star Trek, that lesson became his secret weapon - subtlety and allegory would carry his message where bluntness had failed.
Shaping Star Trek with Subtlety
The Lieutenant debacle wasn’t a dead end - it was a launchpad. Roddenberry learned the hard way that preaching directly to networks and viewers was a recipe for rejection. After that 1964 fiasco, he turned to science fiction, crafting Star Trek as a cosmic Trojan horse. Allegory and subtlety could slip past the radar where bluntness crashed and burned.
Take “A Private Little War” from The Original Series - the Federation and Klingons arm a primitive planet, Neural, mirroring Cold War proxy battles like Vietnam. By setting it off Earth, Roddenberry made the critique digestible, letting viewers chew on superpower meddling without choking on politics. Or look at “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” - two aliens, one black on the left and white on the right, the other flipped, locked in a pointless war over a trivial difference. It’s racism distilled into a sci-fi metaphor, sharp yet subtle enough to dodge censors and stick with audiences. Even bigots could watch it without flinching, quietly opening up to the lesson.
Why does this work? Science backs it up - psych studies, like one from Frontiers in Communication (2021), show narratives processed easily, like allegories, persuade better than raw facts. They call it processing fluency: when ideas flow smoothly, they hit harder and linger longer. Roddenberry nailed this, cloaking big ideas in alien garb to make Star Trek a cultural juggernaut. “The Cloud Minders” is another example - elites float above toiling miners on Stratos, a sly jab at class divides that invites reflection, not resistance.
Sure, the original series eventually got axed after three seasons, but it roared back in syndication. This wasn’t a passive show you could half-watch while scrolling social media - it demanded attention, forced you to think. That allegory kept offense at bay, cracking open progressive ideas to just about anyone. Subtlety didn’t just save Star Trek - it turned it into a slow burn revolution, proving a whisper could outshout a sledgehammer.
Missing the Mark: Section 31
Now fast forward to 2025. Alex Kurtzman’s Star Trek: Section 31, a Michelle Yeoh led spy flick, crashed on Paramount+ with a budget rumored between $80 and $150 million. Slate’s January 24, 2025, review branded it a “disaster” and “possibly the worst entry” in Trek history - clunky dialogue (“your corporate culture is straight up shit”), tonal whiplash, and a plot too shallow to honor Yeoh’s gravitas. Where Roddenberry wielded allegory like a scalpel, Section 31 swings a blunt axe, trading Trek’s depth for a generic action romp that forgets Trek’s soul.
Compare this to Roddenberry’s Trek bibles - the TOS Writer’s Guide (1967) and TNG Bible (1987) - the disconnect screams. These were his gospel, blueprints for a franchise that soared on hope and wonder. TOS demanded “action-adventure with meaning,” pushing writers to dodge tired tropes and spark awe - no “mad scientists” or cheap thrills. TNG went further: Earth’s a paradise, no poverty or war, crews united like family, no petty squabbles tearing them apart. Stories had to provoke through metaphor, not preach from a soapbox. Section 31 flouts them all: its cynical, gray toned espionage clashes with Trek’s optimism, its focus on rogue agents ignores crew harmony, and its lack of layered meaning betrays the bibles’ call for wonder. Roddenberry’s subtlety made Trek soar; Section 31’s heavy hand shows how far Kurtzman’s veered off course. The bibles begged for layered tales that linger; Section 31 delivers a heist so flat it’s DOA, with Slate hinting at studio meddling or slashed budgets leaving fight scenes limp and a climax that fizzles.
This isn’t just a misfire - it’s a case study in Kurtzman’s drift. Roddenberry’s subtlety turned “A Private Little War” into a Cold War mirror without a lecture; Section 31 can’t even nail a spy vibe, let alone a message. For a franchise that thrived on big ideas in clever disguise, this is a kick in the nuts - proof Kurtzman’s traded Trek’s warp drive for a stalled engine.
Discovery: The Erosion of Allegory
I’ve been waving this red flag since Star Trek: Discovery. It ditched Roddenberry’s playbook from the start. Where TOS and TNG used allegory to probe universal questions - Spock and Kirk balancing logic and emotion as a human mirror - Discovery leaned on serialized drama, emotional outbursts, and in your face commentary. Subtlety got swapped for spectacle; hope and wonder drowned in a sea of shouting matches and tear streaked confessions, and swelling orchestral cues that scream “feel this now.” Roddenberry’s Trek invited you to think; Discovery grabs you by the collar and yells its point.
Worse, it broke Trek’s canon and aesthetic. Spock’s secret sister Michael Burnham? Klingons, once rugged warriors with a code, get a bizarre makeover, bald and ornate, resembling Orcs more than their predecessors from The Motion Picture to Deep Space Nine. The ships and uniforms that clash with TOS’s retro charm is jarring at best. These weren’t tweaks - they were ruptures. Roddenberry’s Trek was a cohesive, optimistic universe where humanity had evolved past division. Discovery’s darker edge—war-torn, fractured crews, a Federation on the brink—tosses that vision out the airlock for shock value and grim stakes.
Fans felt the sting early. Season 1’s war arc and Burnham’s mutiny sparked fan backlash, while the Klingon redesign drew groans across forums. Roddenberry’s bibles - the TOS Writer’s Guide and TNG Bible - preached a future of harmony, not dysfunction; Discovery’s five season run kicked off a decade of drift that Section 31 only amplifies. Alex Kurtzman, steering this ship, traded Trek’s quiet brilliance for a louder, messier beast - less “Errand of Mercy” teaching peace through subtlety, more melodrama chasing modern TV trends. It’s not just a new take; it’s a betrayal of the cosmic Trojan horse that made Trek a legend, setting the stage for a franchise now teetering on the edge.
Then there’s Strange New Worlds, the supposed return to form. It’s episodic, yes, and it recaptures some of Trek’s optimism with Captain Pike’s easy charm and a crew that actually seems to like each other. But it’s still tethered to Discovery’s universe - its canon breaking aesthetics and convoluted backstory drag it down like an anchor. The redesigned Enterprise, the retconned Spock - it all feels like a glossy reboot rather than a true heir to Roddenberry’s legacy. Worse, it lacks subtlety. Where Roddenberry might have explored grief through a quiet parable, Strange New Worlds opts for overt trauma dumps, spelling out emotions instead of letting them breathe. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s still miles from the destination.
Kurtzman’s Denial at the Helm
The cracks in Kurtzman’s stewardship widened with a bombshell from Fandom Pulse on March 26, 2025. Actor Rob Kazinsky, who played a human in a mech suit named "Zeph", relayed a not so shocking admission if you've been paying attention: In a conversation between the two, Kurtzman told him, “Star Trek is dying.”
Picture a starship drifting near a collapsing nebula, its captain scanning the void. Red Alert! Sensors blare - hull fractures spreading, warp core faltering—but he broadcasts calm to the crew while quietly putting out a distress call. In the engine room, a lone officer witnesses a coolant leak and communicates to the whole ship that the warp core is about to explode. She tries to patch a signal to the bridge, but the captain silences it, staring at stars that dim one by one. The crew watches, waiting for orders that never come, as the nebula’s pull tightens - an unseen end cloaked in cosmic silence.
Section 31’s flop, following Discovery’s divisive run, paints a grim picture. The fact that Kurtzman actually admitted that "Star Trek is dying" is pretty damning. He knows he's running a damaged brand but refuses to take responsibility for the damage. He’s lashed to a mast of his own making, blind to how his allegory-free, blunt force Trek is running it aground. Kurtzman, facing backlash and a reported nine-figure misfire, seems content to steer Trek into the asteroid field. Instead of trying to right the ship, he decided to pull a 32-flavors approach that took an already niche genre and divided it into even more niches in the hope of snagging a newer generation of fans. He believes that in order to save Star Trek, you have to make it generic, but in the process, he transforms Roddenberry's vision into a monstrosity.
Back to Basics
Paramount stands at a pivotal crossroads, teetering on the edge of a transformative moment in its storied history. The impending sale to Skydance, a media powerhouse, looms large, casting a long shadow over the studio’s future. Skydance, known for blockbuster hits like Mission: Impossible and Top Gun: Maverick, thrives on properties that deliver big audiences and bigger paydays. They’re not in the business of propping up underperformers or indulging in vanity projects - they want winners. For Paramount, this means Star Trek can no longer coast on its legacy; it has to earn its keep.
Kurtzman’s tenure has been a slow unraveling. His "32-flavors" approach has splintered Star Trek into a large array of shows: Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy, Section 31, Starfleet Academy. It’s a shotgun blast of content, chasing every demographic and trend, while diluting the franchise’s identity. What was once a starship soaring with purpose is now a leaky raft, patched with gimmicks and member-berries, drifting without a clear course. Picard turned a beloved captain into a robot; Discovery prioritized spectacle over substance; Section 31 misfired entirely. Even the animated Lower Decks and Prodigy, while less jarring, feel like side dishes to a main course that’s gone cold.
If Paramount wants to save Star Trek, they need to pass the helm to someone who can chart the stars again. Roddenberry’s lesson - subtlety, allegory, hope - isn’t a relic of the past; it’s the lifeline to the future. The new leader must embody Roddenberry’s spirit: a storyteller with vision, not a showrunner chasing trends. Someone who respects canon but isn’t paralyzed by it, who can unify the franchise rather than fracture it further. They’d need to prune the excess - focus on one or two flagship shows, not a dozen - and rebuild trust with fans by honoring what made Star Trek endure. Kurtzman’s era has run its course; it’s time for fresh eyes to steer the ship.
RSS Feed